Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-10-28

., ,.nugnant 70 the Constitution, troa-
~ a. or laws Of the United states,
nor that the authority Of the court was
exercised under H. but mat ths sct was
constitutional and valid and the court
exercised its power In vioihton ol .nnl law.
Tho netitioners we're tried In the courts OF the
STATE under the laws Of the state, and That con-
stitntes due process Of law. II Ia not material
hat this or another court might nave ruled
differently under the law. Due process ol law
meai the law OF the land. In the case OF l'res-
ser -. State Of Illinois, In November, ITo' the
Eadorai cue,tion raised was ~ 20 tho right TO
lenr arms and IL was contended thAt the Illinois
statute was Limitation Of his rights as Gilt
zen of the United states under the iOurteenh
amendment. This court held thai me rght 10
bear arms was not right guarantee ~ inc
Constitution OF the United States; that the Fed.
eral Government was only prevented by the
second amendment from infringing on that
right: that dealing with such a right wa.
matter for state discretion, and That ne police
measure the state could treat II AZ II chose. IL
was beld furthermore that bearing arms was not
n f" pfivilegen or immunity" OF citizenship OF
he United States as contemplated ny the four
tcenth amendment This decision ioroclOses
andber- out the contention OF counsel that the
tights contemplated In tho language 81 the
first ten amendments were all included In the
fourteenth amendment and extended special
guarantees and immunities 10 citlz"ns ~
The United States. II that was not true
I'm ihe Presssr case the limitations
Of the Constitution upon Federal power
are not changed into muniments Of national
cluzenship by the fourteenth Amendment for
PURPOSES involved In the petition IN tais case.
turning % the composition of Jury Ia the trial
court the Acknowledgement said that h dii
not see how the JersoHnei Of the jury which
tried the petitioner In this case could properly
be submitted 20 the court or considered by II In
the present proceeding. This inquiry must be
made az 10 the Constitutionality OF the jury
law Of the state Of Illinois and not as To how
the State court may have construed that law.
Mr. Hunt said that tho jury law OF the
State Of Illinois was not attacked 10y
counsel on the other side in the state supreme
Court They stated expressly Vea1ing IRON
the prOceedings) that 1--WE have not thought II
necessary % attack the c0nsttut0nalty Of the
law, because 10 may be given a construction
which would make IL unobioctOnable.'
The AttOTney-Gencral then called attention
forcbly 10 the fact that the recent changes in
tie jury laws I'm the states all had for their
uurpOse and object the pro 'urcmcnt Of n better
class Of men a. jurors. Is II possible, asked
the Attorey-General, that the states are 70 Do
20 bound by the Federal Constitution thar they
cannot change theirlury laws in accordance with
the changing conditions Of their social and poll
teal life7 l. 81 possible that whenever a law Is
enacted In any State which recognizes the
changed condition Of anairs-a law which Is
intended TO adapt the jury system 10 such
CO. anced cOuditiOn-ihat a Federal question l.
raised? Then the conviction Of auy man In
state court raises Federal question. and I'M
dor the unlimited proy lions VI the fourteenth
amendment that question can hc brought 10
his court for review. lie hoped thai the court
will maturely consider the far-reach NJ conse-
qucnces Of the construction which the petit
TONERS desired 10 have given 10 the fourteenth
amendment
mir. Tucker asks" said the Attoney-Gene-
raj, If do not suppose that the fourteenth
amendment guarantees trial by jury sup
rose that II does, bat we hold that L. was not
intended 10 interfere with the power Of tho
State 10 regulate Jury trial withn it, own
limits; provided 10 DO not uepTive any one OF
equal protection Of laws
As 10 alleged unreasonable search and
seizure" 10 IL said that after the prisoners hal
bees arrested their desks We're brokea opel by
the police and papers. bombs. ETC.. were takeh
without warrant The AttOrney-Gencral sal1
he would Ike 10 know how a criminals instru-
ments Of crime could legally bee taken from
him. lie knew OF no process by Which III couln
bc done n they were his own. The question Tor
The court, however. Was not how was possession
of shose things obtained, but rather what do they
proyc7 I'm the recent case Of kcr against the
People Of Illinois ker was followed 10 South
America, 20 Peru, and was brought back WIN
ont cxtraditiOn proceedings and the court tried
him ana convicted him. Il held that the ques-
ton was not How did you get hercf" but
% Are YOU guiityen This was q ease involving
a higher question Of personal right than that
involved in the case now before ms court
whether a man having been Kidnapped 10y the
Illinois authorities in Peru without resort 70
sNiradition papers was protected ny th' te le-
raj constitution"
s:torney-Gcneral Hunt: "Yes, your Honor
iut IL was on account OF tho Illegal mcthol by
which hc lad been brought INFO court ihat he
claimed immunity
Acknowledgement Hunt then took mp the clso
~ the prisoners Fielden Gnd Spies. and
said lhat he understood 10 W)ull De
urged ~ the counsel on the other side that
hey being Accommodation an Engll shman
| and SPIES a Gcrmsn-Were prOte'iei by the
treaties between the United states aud ther
resi- eefiye governments: that they snOlld have
immunity because the treaties provided tha'
citizens Of England and Germany living In Tn.
United states should have all the rights ana
privileges guaranteed by the law TO al citizens
| Of the United States AT the time the treatie:
were ratified. " understand ne said, THAI
! this will De the contention
The chief Justice: In what respect Ia u SAID
that this violates the citizenship Of Great Br-
| tain?
! General Butler: They were 70 have all the
| privileges Of Americans al th3 date Of tho trea
| ties. and among hose privileges, We contend
] was trial by jury under The laws then in force
! so laws could be passed To change their con
| ditior under the organic law-the highest law
| Acknowledgement Hunt reDliei tnht II TN
| were 50 Their the prisoners without being citi
! zcrs were privileged pcrsons above tho law
| Of he state which they set al defiance.
! The large audience IN the courtroom phil th'
| closest attention 90 the proceedings through
| out the afternoon, and scores ~ persons IN
| clroirg some ladies, remained standing 10
| ave hours Just outside the bar.
! Tie Acknowledgement Of illinois viii con
| Guide lis argument Tor the state tomorrow
aud win be followed by General Butler in be-
half Of tho petitioners. and particularly o
| Foden and Spies Mr. Grilnell Will proOabl
| mike tho closing argument In opp 5itlon 1
| mo motion for the writ Of error, aud the cour
| VII then take tho case under adyisemeu-